The Petitioner, a business administrator, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § ll 53(b )(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act.
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that:
- The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance;
- The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysts
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The appeal brief states that the Petitioner's position as a business administrator "will broadly impact various areas since business management is the backbone of any given business establishment." The evidence provided does not demonstrate that this specific endeavor is of national importance. The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of her work. In Dhanasar we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893.
Here, the Petitioner has not adequately established that her position as a business administrator will have a broader impact on the field beyond the individual company or companies she will work for.No broader implications shown The brief concentrates on the various impacts of the business field on the U.S. economy and claims that the Petitioner's actions as a business administrator will "have broader implications, as their results will disseminate ... to every other field in the U.S." and "creates the opportunity to raise the standard of living for the United States and the world." Yet the brief and the record does not sufficiently explain how her employment as an individual business administrator would impact the overall field more broadly beyond her employer on the level of national importance.
The Petitioner also claims that her skills "deeply differ" from others and that she will offer "business solutions in a range beyond the local community" to benefit the region. However, the brief does not supply sufficient explanations to clarify how her skills differ deeply or what solutions she will offer to benefit the community. Contentions require support to underpin them, as assertions themselves do not constitute evidence. See, e.g., Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight").
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate national importance either.2 The record includes the Petitioner's educational records, training certificates, employment verification, salary records, her professional identification, performance awards, and support letters. 3 The Petitioner has not explained how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments and experiences, not the specific endeavor's potential impact in the business field. Generally, this type of evidence is more appropriate for the second prong when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Additionally, the Petitioner provided a letter from Dr. a professor at As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988).
Nonetheless, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight ifit is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here the advisory opinion is of little probative value as Dr. evaluation of national importance does not adequately address the requirements of Dhanasar regarding national importance. The opinion focuses on the importance of the business field and analyzes how the Petitioner's skills will make her a successful business administrator. However, this focus is misplaced as is not the importance of the field that determines an endeavor's national importance, but rather how the specific endeavor will impact the field on a level commensurate with national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
Additionally, the Petitioner's ability to act as a business administrator is more applicable to determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under the second 2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 3 We note that in response to the request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted updated salary and employment documentation, as well as a training certificate. However, the evidence shows that the Petitioner began the position and completed the training after the petition's filing.Not eligible at the time of filing A petitioner must meet all of the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). p. 4 prong. Id. at 890. The opinion neglects to sufficiently analyze how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will impact the field beyond the Petitioner's employers or offer substantial positive economic effects. From the evidence provided, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor will have a national impact on the business field.
Moreover, she has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.Job creation or economic claims unsupported An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may have national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
The Petitioner avers that her employment will have "ripple effects" on the U.S. economy and will be a "major economic contributor." The determination of national importance hinges on an assessment of the broader societal or economic implications of the Petitioner's contributions, requiring she demonstrate broader benefits that extend beyond the confines of a local industry. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. While any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact the economy, the Petitioner has not supported her claims with evidence to establish how the economic activity of her proposed endeavor as an individual business administrator would rise to the level of national importance. Thus, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's work as a sales director would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond the companies who employ her to affect the region or nation more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893.Proposed endeavor too vague She has not shown that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong ofthe Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.